At my place of employment we've seen the rise and fall of MANY web developers.
They come in touting standards -- then use Dreamweaver to sling some ASP. They were fired (95% of the time) because they couldn't handle the more technical aspects of web development.
If they can't make a form or server-side script work on one of our clients' sites, they were canned. The entire hire/fire process could've been circumvented had we asked a few of the more nerdy questions above.
Being a web developer that refuses to adopt new techniques and shys away from higher-level computing means going home without a job. (For a web designer, though, no tech-savvy necessary)
And to Mr. Martinez: I didn't leave in a huff. You had nothing constructive to add to the discussion, so I dropped it. All you've done in your posts is side with what others have said, drop a few Tolkien references, and let your own opinions whither on the vine. You are sadly misinformed, and too stuck on yourself to listen to anyone that doesn't speak fluent Elvish.
It is possible to develop sites that are valid XHTML/CSS, follow web standards and accessibility guidelines, work in all browsers released in the last half decade, AND look nice. It's just a bit more work.
Ask someone without sight how they like table layouts, and how their screen reader handles the non-semantic markup.
Keep in mind you're touting tables on an SEO blog that is almost completely semantic/valid (spare a few unescaped amersands and missing alt attributes).
If tables truly are better, why are most SEO sites done-up with XHTML/CSS? Why did the NY Times just redesign with a div-based layout, using tables where appropriate?
This is not some new-fangled techo-trend. It helps people find and navigate content better than any previous methods of browser-based content delivery.
Again, the accessibility provided is generally required by law in many countries: http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/
Perhaps it's time for Mr. Martinez to leave the Shire and start worrying about others. Some people need these practices in place to live their life with fewer barriers. May 11, 2006

Anyone can rant over straw men, Rand. It's about the only tactic most people use in these kinds of debates.

Again with the feeble attemp at discrediting an author. Why not put some of your hot-air behind your points above and actually defend your Wordpad/table combo which you seem to hold so near and dear?
I'm leaving. Mr. Martinez can continue his little quips, this conversation is going nowhere.
Drop me an email if you pull your tail from your legs and decide you'd truly like to debate these issues.
michael.nospam (at) gmail.com May 11, 2006

Whereas we're all to understand that you in your judgemental fury are not?
Riiight.

I've earned my arrogance. And is that the best retort you can muster? And why are you still trolling? Sheesh, go outside and get some fresh air!
As far as SEO goes: I am a programmer for one of the top three in the world -- trust me when I say that semantics matter. (I do freelance design on the side, sort of a sex/money career situation) May 11, 2006

Look, there's no debate.
Whether the developer is going to be tied to a kernel or a GUI, there is simply no excuse not to use a text editor other than Notepad/Wordpad.
Great, you have proper line return handling with Wordpad. But while you reach for the mouse to manipulate text, I'll be grabbing a cup of coffee -- because I took the time to master an advanced editor like (g)Vim (or Emacs!) and finished what you were attempting in half of the time. If text manipulation is part of your career (developer/programmer/et al) then you need to use a powerful editor. You'll become amazingly efficient, and make fewer mistakes (Notepad/Wordpad don't have native syntax highlighting or indenting).
I'm glad we have an old stalwart hell-bent on keeping the web tied to tables. Awesome.
Well sir, while your sites suck bandwidth and client-side CPU (unless you're specifying widths/heights for each table cell), I'll be laughing behind my Vim window, thumbing through my copy of CSS Mastery.
If you think that tables are easier to manage than standards-based div/span style markup then that's because you're just not equipped to write good code. If you can't cut down on the amount of markup, you're doing something wrong.
You may be a great marketer, a sub-par SEO expert (without embracing semantic markup, you are in no way qualified to dole-out SEO advice), and even a good debater -- but there is no debate.
You are arrogant, Mr. Martinez. Your websites that you referenced should be sent to /dev/null/ (if you don't get the joke, you are not a web developer). Do you not have anything better to do than troll this board, defending your opinions? When's the last time you made the effort to better yourself by learning something new?
Web standards and semantics will win. That's why MS finally caved to the demands of developers with IE7 (well, the ones yelling "CSS").
Standards and semantics are faster in both file transfer and render time, they are more accessible to search engines and the impaired, and they are far more flexible. Done properly, you can redesign an entire site just by changing a stylesheet. I'd like to see your tables do that.
Some countries have accessibility and web publishing laws in place that your tables would fail gloriously.
http://www.csszengarden.comhttp://www.webstandards.comMay 11, 2006